beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 22,532,00 as well as 6% per annum from May 2, 2012 to February 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures chemical products with the trade name of “D” and Defendant B is a person registered as the business owner of “F” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant C is a person who is the actual operator of the above F and is the representative director of Nonparty G Co., Ltd.
B. On January 31, 2008, H entered into a contract for the supply of goods with Defendant C, a representative of F, on behalf of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”). At the time of the instant contract for the supply of goods, the “Agreement on the Supply of DD Taxation” (A) entered into with Defendant C, under the name of “F Representative B” printed on the name of “A: F,” and affixed his seal impression, and then affixed his seal impression on the printed name of “B,” and then written his name on the following.
C. Defendant C was supplied with goods, such as taxation, in the name of F, by the Plaintiff according to the instant goods supply contract. The said F was in fact closed around 201, and Defendant C continued to be supplied with taxation from the Plaintiff since June 201, while operating Company G.
The Plaintiff supplied taxation, etc. by May 1, 2012 upon Defendant C’s request, and the price for goods not paid until now is KRW 23,274,00.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-12, 15, and 16 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B is the representative of F and is the party to the instant contract for the supply of goods. Defendant C promised not only the actual management entity but also the joint and several liability for the above goods. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff.
B. We examine the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, the fact that Defendant B was registered as the representative of F, and the supply of DD tax system.